Re: [OPSAWG] The future of MUD work

----- Original Message -----
From: "Joe Clarke (jclarke)" <jclarke@cisco.com>
Sent: Monday, July 29, 2019 10:44 PM

> OpsAWG members and our Ops ADs, it was discussed in opsawg at IETF 105
that with the amount of MUD work being proposed (and discussions
happening outside of opsawg) that perhaps MUD should evolve into its own
WG.  Some cons to this approached were discussed (maybe it would be too
heavy-weight with a charter, milestones, etc.).  However, I wanted to
take this conversation to the list so we can close on it publicly.
>
> Speaking as WG co-chair, I am happy to continue to support the MUD
work in opsawg, but I want to make sure the WG feels compelled to work
on it; and I want to make sure the full community that is interested in
MUD can follow and discuss items here.  That said, it was mentioned in
105 that perhaps a bigger “on-boarding” set of work would be better
served in its own WG.  I think if the scope of MUD grows beyond the
definition and its extensions (as we’ve been seeing the work progress
thus far) it might be better served in its own WG space.
>
> Thoughts?

I think that a WG has a cost, needing chairs (and I think that WG chairs
are in short supply), a different mailing list, different archive,
different name for I-Ds (which create a lack of continuity, making it
hard to track the history of work) another meeting to squeeze into an
IETF meeting.  Splitting off part of a task puts focus on it provided
that there are those interested in focussing on it; I am not sure that
there is here.

And it would focus on the name, as in 'Your name is mud' which, in my
culture, does not have a positive association.

Tom Petch

> Joe
> _______________________________________________
> OPSAWG mailing list
> OPSAWG@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
>